Carthage, N.C. — A Carthage man has been charged with 135 counts of sexual exploitation after child pornography was found on a computer, authorities said Wednesday.

Nathaniel Leon Phillips, 25, of 129 Nathan Road, was charged with 132 counts of second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor and three counts of third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. His bond was set at $1.25 million.

After receiving a tip about child pornography, Moore County deputies and State Bureau of Investigation agents seized a computer and found numerous photos and videos depicting children under age 16 engaged in sex acts with adult men and women, authorities said.

Copyright 2014 by Capitol Broadcasting Company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

jjslilredApr 21, 2008

Saturn5: I don't know if I'm right or not, but I heard that they proved it was him in the pictures performing sexual acts with children because of some kind of mark he had (don't know whether it was a birthmark, scar or tattoo). Like I said before though, I'm only hearing this from people who worked with him, so it doesn't necessarily make it the full gospel truth. But, to answer your initial question, yes, he was actually committing the acts and didn't simply have child porn on him computer. The police obviously had the proof they needed to charge him accordingly.

BUCKEYEnNCApr 17, 2008

Prison will not be kind to this guy!!!!!

saturn5Apr 17, 2008

By emotional I meant that anything dealing with protecting our children is emotinally charged. I'm not talking about the emotional psychology of a pedophile. That's for the experts to deal with.

Thanks for the study example. Being in the "self gratification stage" does shine a new light on how the use of the media can lead to other crimes.

AdelintheApr 17, 2008

"Let the Fathers of the children in the pictures serve justice in this case !"

Or the mothers, unless the parents too were involved.

Praying for the children.

God bless.

Rev. RB

TheAdmiralApr 17, 2008

"It's an emotional issue, and I'm not defending him or trying to sway people's opinions."

It's not really an emotional issue. The fact of the matter is that people ignore what science says because they believe and trust that the people who's sexual preference is just this very thing will do the right thing.

Their sexual hunger drives them more than food itself. That is why these people are a danger to society. Locking them up and letting them out does not resolve the problem.

TheAdmiralApr 17, 2008

"Does that make them murderers? Does that make them potential murderers? Does that show they have the psychology of a killer and will eventually get over their inhibitions enough to kill someone?"

A study in 1980 that was done by Johnson (then at the mayo clinic) found that people who played with themselves while watching murder were 99% likely to go out on the street and commit the crime.

They found that when people had the pornography in front of them, the people who played with themselves to orgasm while watching smut were also likely to do the same.

The two are entirely different issues. While you can watch Daniel Pearl have his head chopped off, you are not taking any action other than being grossed out. We have taken murder and turned it into a circus side show.

But when you have an adult who is in the self-gratification stage using children nude or performing acts on other children and creating pleasure from that - it leads to the next step of pleasure by flesh.

saturn5Apr 17, 2008

I'm not an expert on psychology, so I'll refrain from judging what actions someone may commit in the future.

As for why someone would have a "snuff" film - consider the Nick Berg beheading video posted online by terrorists. Call it morbid curiosity, interest in the news, whatever, but I'm sure there are many people in the U.S. who have viewed that video. Does that make them murderers? Does that make them potential murderers? Does that show they have the psychology of a killer and will eventually get over their inhibitions enough to kill someone?

It's an emotional issue, and I'm not defending him or trying to sway people's opinions. He should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If I, or anyone else, feel the law's response is inappropriate we should lobby to have the laws changed.

TheAdmiralApr 17, 2008

Saturn5 -

You said: "I must have missed it in the story, but did he have just media on his computer, or is there any evidence that he ever actually interacted with a minor? I'm not defending his actions, but I don't think having the pictures should be the same crime as actually abusing the minor and taking the pictures."

Here is what the problem is. When this dude is playing with himself to nude children - he has already on the road to pedophilia. As he continues in his perversion, he eventually goes further and eventually gets past inhibitions and starts molesting children.

This is a problem. Incorrectly applied critical thinking. I can not separate a person who is watching it into perversion and one who is committing the act because they are the same. Knowing the psychology of these perverts is important.

Igoring and rationalizing the psychology of the perverts lead to child molestation and abuse.

colliedaveApr 17, 2008

If he never touched a child and the only crime is the media on his PC, should that really be punished the same as the sickos who create the stuff?

Yes!

Just like having a video of someone being killed on your PC doesn't make you a murderer.

Why would one have a "snuff" film on her computer?

saturn5Apr 17, 2008

I don't deny the man has issues and has allegedly broken the law. I'm just asking if he has actually injured any children. If he never touched a child and the only crime is the media on his PC, should that really be punished the same as the sickos who create the stuff?

It's easy to say they're all sick, kill 'em all, but that's not justice. The punishment (and treatment if any) should match the crime.